Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png and its URAA date

I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, this will have to be converted to non-free use if eligible, otherwise deleted. Felix QW (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I believe I was wrong then in the addition of proper copyright status Canned Knight (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to agree, I proposed its deletion. Felix QW (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Kim Jong-suk politician photo.jpg

I'm confused. I want to understand where I might've went wrong with this file's copyright. Keep in mind, the subject is North Korean. There's a template on Commons that could be used to potentially support making the image public domain, though it's unknown when the image was taken and whether or not the subject is deceased.

But since the image is from the official website of the Ministry of Unification, which is a South Korean website, wouldn't it make more sense to put "{{KOGL|1=Ministry of Korea}}" instead? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi OpalYosutebito. The reason the file has been tagged for speedy deletion has to do with Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1. As explained in WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, non-free images of living people are pretty much never allowed because it's considered reasonable that a free equivalent image can either be found or be created to serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. If, for some reason, you feel that this isn't the case with respect to this file, you can explain why by following the instructions given in the template that was added to the file's page and using the {{di-replaceable non-free use disputed}}. Just for reference, though, there needs to be a pretty strong reason for allowing a non-free image to be used in a case like this; simply saying something like the "I couldn't find a free image" or "I don't know whether the subject is dead" are generally not considered sufficient. Even saying someone is North Korean also doesn't work because for many years a non-free image of the leader of the country wasn't even allowed because he was still alive. Anyway, if, per your OP, you think this image might be within the public domain, you might want to consider asking about it at c:COM:VPC to see what others might think. Since Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type per c:COM:FAIR, anything uploaded to Commons is, in principle, not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content uploaded to Wikipedia. Uploading something to Commons doesn't mean it won't ever ended up being deleted, however; which is why I suggest asking about it at VPC first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted on the VPC, though at this point, I'm willing to accept defeat and learn from it... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Does this meet the threshold of originality?

Would this image: https://0x0.st/Xp_0.png qualify as being original enough for copyright would the fact it's comprised of chemical structures and prevent it from having any copyright? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You've only provided a direct link to the image. The image had to come from somewhere. Can you provide more information about the provenance image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is from a book, which itself is copyrighted. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some more information about the book? It could help assess the copyright status of the image. Is the image attributed to anyone? Sometimes images are invidually attributed on the same page as the image, but sometimes they're attributed all together on the "Bibliography" page or some similar page in the end matter of books.

Anyway, there's a whole category of structural formula found at c:Category:SVG structural formulas and those files seem to be using the license c:Template:PD-chem. It could be that a particular structural formula could be can for trademark protection but not copyright protection. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC or even at WP:CHEMISTRY because if the image you're referring to isn't eligible for copyright protection, it should be uploaded to Commons. One possibility here is that the written form of a structural formula is similar to the blazon of a coat-of-arms in that it's not eligible for copyright protection. Visual representations of the formula might, therefore, be similar to the emblazon of a coat-of-arms, in that they could be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not attributed at all and the book itself mentions everything is copyrighted to the publisher unless stated otherwise, which is under the image/table itself if it is. But I'll ask at Commons like you said. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing a family photo

I've never contributed or edited Wikipedia before, I would just like to change a picture on an existing article.

I'm a descendant of a diplomat whose current photo is apparently in the public domain, but isn't what our family would like to use to represent him. In our collection of family photos, there are several better (and clearer for the article's educational value) pictures, any one of which we would prefer over the current one.

The photographer of these photos is unknown, and my relative died only 40 years ago, so it's nearly certain that the photographer is also deceased.

How do I change an unflattering public domain picture with a family photo in a professional setting with no clear ownership or person who could grant permission? Csg99 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing the title of the page you are referring to? If the image used there is indeed in the public domain and the alternatives you have in your possession are not, then there is unfortunately not too much one can do. Felix QW (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article is on Eduardo Quintero. Csg99 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The Go Go's cover art

File:Head Over Heels GoGos.jpg and File:TurnToYouGoGos.jpg are very colorful, but they also seem to be nothing more than the name of the band and the name of the song in a fairly simple font combined with various colors. It seems like they should be {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, but just want to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Shokz Logo.svg

File:Shokz Logo.svg without a license and it being used in Draft:Shokz. Although the uploader has declared they're being paid by Shokz to create the draft, they've given seeklogo.com as the source for the logo instead of the company's official website for some reason. The logo appears to be the one actually being used and seems OK as {{PD-logo}}, but I just want to make sure. If it needs to be non-free, it can't be used in the draft per WP:NFCC#9. Are there any reasons why this needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Historic and current images

I want to include "now vs. then" images of a building over time. I have reviewed some of the policies but am wondering how they apply to this scenario - a building in the United States, built before 1990, but has been externally renovated or altered in the 2000's. Does using such images require permission? Zenith4151 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zenith4151. US copyright law, in principle, allows freedom of panorama for habitable structures like buildings, houses, etc. per c:COM:FOP United States; this means such structures can be photographed without worrying about infringing upon the copyright of buildings designer. However, this just applies to the structure itself, but not ncessarily to any decorative elements subsequently added to or integrally part of the structure. For example, you could freely photograph the side of the a building without worrying about infringing upon the copyright of the building's designer; however, if someone paints a mural on that side of the building, then said mural could be eligible its own copyright separate from the building that you would need to consider when taking and re-using the photo. In addition, freedom of panorama allows you take your own photos of buildings, but it doesn't mean you can freely use photos of buildings taken by others. Genrally, the copyright of the photo resides with the person who takes it, not the subject of the photo. Photo of 3D objects are considered eligible for copyright protection because there are a significant number of creative decisions involved in taking such a photo. So, if you stand in front of your house and taken a photo of it, you're the copyright holder of the photo and can pretty much do with it as you please; however, if your neighbor does the same, they are the copyright holder of their photo (even though it's of your house) and you can really reuse it without their consent. By "reuse" in this context, I mean upload the photo to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as your "own work" under a "free license". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

PD-US-expired?

File:Andrew Mitchell Uniacke.png is licensed as non-free, but it's a photo of Andrew Mitchell Uniacke who died in 1895. Does this really need to be treated as non-free? Can't this be relicensed as {{PD-US-expired}} or something similar, and tagged for a move to Commons? According to the file's description, the original source is a book published (possibly in Canada) in 1901.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes images are published a long time after their creation. If it was published in 1901 though then US copyright has expired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I've uploaded the following version of the file to the commons as c:File:Andrew Mitchell Uniacke-portrait.jpg generated from the same source but from the individual JP2000 files and converted from that format to jgp. It is almost 100% larger than the non-free file. ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ww2censor for taking a look at this. @Ww2censor: Maybe you could explain what you did to the local file's uploader so that they don't try and reuse the file after the "orphaned non-free use" notification shows up on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Fake PD claim?

File:Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs (1943) by Bob Clampett 2.webm has a PD copyright notice, but that appears to be fake (the video is a relatively recent review of a cartoon from 1943); what is the right thing to do about this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That file is on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Before nominating it for deletion on Commons, though, you might want to first ask about it at c:COM:VPC just to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you; I will ask at commons. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And now the file has been deleted by the person who originally posted it; thanks again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

NIH History Office photo = US-GOV PD?

Working on a draft for a former National Institutes of Health (NIH) virologist and I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? Silverseren^C 01:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Old WoRMS logo – two versions of the same version of the logo, one on Commons, the other here

Is the old WoRMS logo copyrighted? The Commons version is c:File:WoRMS.jpg and is said to be under a CC BY-SA license, but the version on the English Wikipedia is claimed to be copyrighted. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: The local non-free file was uploaded more than a year before the Commons file was uploaded; moreover, even though the source url is the same, the uploaders of the two files are different. I can't see anything on the latest version (at least at first glance) of the source website that indicates the content contained on that page has been released under a CC-by-SA license; however, such information could be on a different inner page or I could just be missing it. The wesbite's Terms of Use page states that text is released under a CC-by-SA license but images are released under a CC-by-NC-SA license. Whether that was the case at the time the files were uploaded, I can't say; a NC license, however, isn't free enough for Commons. My guess here, per WP:AGF, is that the user who uploaded it to Commons just made a mistake and for some reason just thought it would be OK to do so.

FWIW, that's user's Commons user talk page is filled with lots of file licensing related notifications; some of the files have ended up deleted but others have been kept. The user hasn't edited Commons or any other WMF projects since 2018; so, they might've moved on and won't respond to a direct enquiry. The non-free seems fine at the moment; so, it's the Commons file that needs to be sorted out, and that needs to be done on Commons. Maybe try asking about it at c:COM:VPC? If the Commons file ends up deleted, then the non-free should most likely stay non-free. On the other hand, if the Commons file is kept, then the non-free is no longer need and can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At the Village pump's Copyright section, Felix QW said that When the old logo was uploaded, WoRMS said the web pages and their information was used under CC BY but did not say which version, and there was no hyperlink to any version of the license, so {{Attribution}} may be used there. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I used this map in an epub?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_with_state_names_2.svg#file Thanks! 70.171.192.19 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair Use of non-free political cartoon?

On the page Stochastic Terrorism, I would like to use the non-free cartoon published by UK artist Dave Brown in The Independent on 2 August 2024 - Image from this page depicting UK politician Nigel Farage throwing petrol bombs into a riot whilst saying "Me? I'm just tossing a few questions out there!". It would be included in the Incidents section, with the section on the 2024 UK riots.

I think - but am not entirely sure - that this can meet Fair Use, but have little experience with non-free media outside organisation logos. Aside from being an excellent piece of commentary and illustration of Stochastic Terrorism, the work represents a very rare (and thus significant) example of directly linking Farage's speech to violent disorder. UK mainstream media have been very reticent to publicly call out right-wing extremists (especially elected MPs!) for encouraging violence - carefully couching their criticism behind free speech concepts. It is therefore of encyclopaedic value in illustrating both the concept of stochastic terrorism, and commenting on the UK media's increasingly critical position on such speech. In terms of fair use policy:

• No Free equivalent - It is not realistic to find a free image that represents "commentary by mainstream media", as the latter is always copyright!
• Respect for commercial opportunities. - As a daily cartoon, the work is intended to be disposable - little secondary value is envisaged. A low-resolution version would not inhibit the limited market for prints or signed copies
• Minimal usage - Min legible resolution
• Previous publication - published by the Independent
• Content & media policy - I believe it meets these.
• Contextual Significance - Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is being increasingly discussed in public discourse and this art is an early and significant piece of commentary that succinctly describes it and would increase readers' understanding.

What does the gallery think? Hemmers (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg

Would File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg this be considered a 2D graphic work in the UK? If it is, then this might not be able to be kept since there's no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK per c:COM:FOP UK and the textual content of noticeboards and signs is often eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. This doesn't qualify for {{FOP-USonly}} and I don't see any justification for converting to a non-free license based on the file's current use in the article Blue plaque. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous images of blue plaques on Commons, so unless there's a massive purge to come then they must be assumed to be 3D and are therefore covered by FOP-UK. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)